GroundedWisdom wrote: » I know what everyone else knows. That they're looking at Champs based on imperial data, that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly, and that there is a varied range in the Crystal. I am entitled to my own opinion based on the information presented. That's not up for debate.
LeNoirFaineant wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » I know what everyone else knows. That they're looking at Champs based on imperial data, that they're making an effort not to include the ones that perform poorly, and that there is a varied range in the Crystal. I am entitled to my own opinion based on the information presented. That's not up for debate. @GroundedWisdom it's based on imperial data? Lmao Kabam must be the Evil Empire.
Mandagar wrote: » Everyone the below is for Kabam Miike. I honestly don't expect him to listen but it sure would be nice. Heck, if this gets removed I wouldn't be surprised. I just hope it is up long enough for everyone to see and possibly get a chance to put in their two cents. Dear @Kabam Miike, Please listen to the players. Look at this discussion. You have to see that this new featured crystal is a bad idea. Your so-called empirical data is wrong. Here is an idea listen to the players not the team because the team does not make it possible for you to get a paycheck, The players in this discussion does just that and I can bet that they will agree with me.
CoquiFongo wrote: » That’s what happens when you try to use too many $5 words and get caught.
Titan_A97 wrote: » Say what you want but the term 'effective' is quite vague in this context. To be frank, I don't really understand what 'effective' means. In reality, every champ can be used 'effectively', creating further confusion.
Thestoryteller6 wrote: » It's too late to do this but... I think this might have gone down much better if you hadn't tried to put this ridiculous spin on it. It's clearly not beneficial to players and progression so why try to spin it as such? I would have been far happier with an explanation like, 5 star shards are getting much more easily available making featured crystals imbalanced. Or something that made sense. This is exactly the situation with AW - you put together a ridiculous statement with a ton of exclamation marks saying it would be amazing and that really made you look out of touch with reality (as real as a video game can be).
DNA3000 wrote: » DrZola wrote: » “We are using empirical data based on Champion performance in Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars to decide which Champions will be added to the Crystal. This means that while Player perception of the Champions may not always align, we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions...” “It's important to note that this list could still potentially change a little before the release, but the selected Champions are based on empirical data showing their effectiveness as 5-Star Champions in both Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars.” “I didn't say most used, but they are among the most effective. Cyclops actually scores very high on this list. There is a smaller group of players that use him, but they use him VERY effectively.” @DNA3000 I’m not sure how you read these quotes and conclude they intended to only eliminate the champs we think are bad and didn’t intend them to be anything in particular. The first quote literally says "we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions" which is an explicit statement of intent. The second quote says literally nothing about intent. It says they used empirical data showing the champion effectiveness in making their choices. This statement would be true on its face if the devs decided to put the best champions into the crystal, if they decided to put the worst champions into the crystal, if they decided to put the most mediocre champions into the crystal, if they decided to put a random sampling of different effectiveness champions into the crystal, or if they decided to make each crystal have a different effectiveness basket. The third statement doesn't address what the intent of the crystal contents are. It expresses @Kabam Miike's opinion, or an opinion he is passing on, about the effectiveness of certain champions: the quote in context is: Kabam Miike wrote: » bradshaw84 wrote: » Beast, Jane foster, Cyclops, Ronan, Loki, Phoenix, Venompool, civil warrior, ant man amongst the 18 best and most used in aq and aw? GTFOH! LMAO! Kabam Miike wrote: » Just talked to the team, and they are comfortable with sharing the list of Champions we plan to include in the first Featured Champion Crystal. It's important to note that this list could still potentially change a little before the release, but the selected Champions are based on empirical data showing their effectiveness as 5-Star Champions in both Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars.... I didn't say most used, but they are among the most effective. Cyclops actually scores very high on this list. There is a smaller group of players that use him, but they use him VERY effectively. He is speaking very specifically about a list of champions, not the intent of the crystal. He is saying that Beast, Jane foster, Cyclops, Ronan, Loki, Phoenix, Venompool, Civil Warrior, and Ant Man score highly in their datamining in terms of how they judge effectiveness when they are used by players. He also specifically disavows the notion that lots of players use them or even necessarily think they are effective champions to use. He only says that the players who use them are effective with them. But again, that doesn't say that the intent of the crystal is to place the highest effective champions (as Kabam datamines them to be) into the crystal. Because he does not mention other champions, it is still entirely possible that the crystal contains a mix of champions, of which some are effective in certain ways in certain tiers of AQ and AW. There is no reasonable reason to state that if Kabam Miike says those nine champions are seen as effective and used by a small number of players, that every champion fits that description. As for analysis, it’s pretty clear Miike wants to hang his hat on empirical data the team looked at to make their determination. I'm not sure what you mean by "hang his hat." Its a plain statement that Kabam used empirical data to decide how to evaluate the champions. Every MMO company does that. But nowhere do they say *which* champions, given that data, were intentionally put in the crystal. For example, it would be entirely consistent with how MMO companies generally work for Kabam to see that different champions are used at different tiers, or by different player populations of varying skill and playtime, and try to pick a random sample of such champions from across different segments of the player population to represent a wide swath of them. Doing so would guarantee that many if not most of the champions would only be seen as useful by a small percentage of the players, and seen less favorably by a majority of the players. That happens all the time when a reward is created that is a segmented sum of narrow-casted datamining. ... It is numerically possible for Kabam to exclude the bottom 25% from the curated list. It is numerically impractical, and borderline impossible, for Kabam to include only the top 50%.
DrZola wrote: » “We are using empirical data based on Champion performance in Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars to decide which Champions will be added to the Crystal. This means that while Player perception of the Champions may not always align, we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions...” “It's important to note that this list could still potentially change a little before the release, but the selected Champions are based on empirical data showing their effectiveness as 5-Star Champions in both Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars.” “I didn't say most used, but they are among the most effective. Cyclops actually scores very high on this list. There is a smaller group of players that use him, but they use him VERY effectively.” @DNA3000 I’m not sure how you read these quotes and conclude they intended to only eliminate the champs we think are bad and didn’t intend them to be anything in particular.
Kabam Miike wrote: » bradshaw84 wrote: » Beast, Jane foster, Cyclops, Ronan, Loki, Phoenix, Venompool, civil warrior, ant man amongst the 18 best and most used in aq and aw? GTFOH! LMAO! Kabam Miike wrote: » Just talked to the team, and they are comfortable with sharing the list of Champions we plan to include in the first Featured Champion Crystal. It's important to note that this list could still potentially change a little before the release, but the selected Champions are based on empirical data showing their effectiveness as 5-Star Champions in both Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars.... I didn't say most used, but they are among the most effective. Cyclops actually scores very high on this list. There is a smaller group of players that use him, but they use him VERY effectively.
bradshaw84 wrote: » Beast, Jane foster, Cyclops, Ronan, Loki, Phoenix, Venompool, civil warrior, ant man amongst the 18 best and most used in aq and aw? GTFOH! LMAO! Kabam Miike wrote: » Just talked to the team, and they are comfortable with sharing the list of Champions we plan to include in the first Featured Champion Crystal. It's important to note that this list could still potentially change a little before the release, but the selected Champions are based on empirical data showing their effectiveness as 5-Star Champions in both Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars....
Kabam Miike wrote: » Just talked to the team, and they are comfortable with sharing the list of Champions we plan to include in the first Featured Champion Crystal. It's important to note that this list could still potentially change a little before the release, but the selected Champions are based on empirical data showing their effectiveness as 5-Star Champions in both Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars....
As for analysis, it’s pretty clear Miike wants to hang his hat on empirical data the team looked at to make their determination.
DrZola wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » DrZola wrote: » “We are using empirical data based on Champion performance in Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars to decide which Champions will be added to the Crystal. This means that while Player perception of the Champions may not always align, we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions...” “It's important to note that this list could still potentially change a little before the release, but the selected Champions are based on empirical data showing their effectiveness as 5-Star Champions in both Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars.” “I didn't say most used, but they are among the most effective. Cyclops actually scores very high on this list. There is a smaller group of players that use him, but they use him VERY effectively.” @DNA3000 I’m not sure how you read these quotes and conclude they intended to only eliminate the champs we think are bad and didn’t intend them to be anything in particular. The first quote literally says "we are trying to avoid poor performing Champions" which is an explicit statement of intent. The second quote says literally nothing about intent. It says they used empirical data showing the champion effectiveness in making their choices. This statement would be true on its face if the devs decided to put the best champions into the crystal, if they decided to put the worst champions into the crystal, if they decided to put the most mediocre champions into the crystal, if they decided to put a random sampling of different effectiveness champions into the crystal, or if they decided to make each crystal have a different effectiveness basket. The third statement doesn't address what the intent of the crystal contents are. It expresses @Kabam Miike's opinion, or an opinion he is passing on, about the effectiveness of certain champions: the quote in context is: Kabam Miike wrote: » bradshaw84 wrote: » Beast, Jane foster, Cyclops, Ronan, Loki, Phoenix, Venompool, civil warrior, ant man amongst the 18 best and most used in aq and aw? GTFOH! LMAO! Kabam Miike wrote: » Just talked to the team, and they are comfortable with sharing the list of Champions we plan to include in the first Featured Champion Crystal. It's important to note that this list could still potentially change a little before the release, but the selected Champions are based on empirical data showing their effectiveness as 5-Star Champions in both Alliance Quests and Alliance Wars.... I didn't say most used, but they are among the most effective. Cyclops actually scores very high on this list. There is a smaller group of players that use him, but they use him VERY effectively. He is speaking very specifically about a list of champions, not the intent of the crystal. He is saying that Beast, Jane foster, Cyclops, Ronan, Loki, Phoenix, Venompool, Civil Warrior, and Ant Man score highly in their datamining in terms of how they judge effectiveness when they are used by players. He also specifically disavows the notion that lots of players use them or even necessarily think they are effective champions to use. He only says that the players who use them are effective with them. But again, that doesn't say that the intent of the crystal is to place the highest effective champions (as Kabam datamines them to be) into the crystal. Because he does not mention other champions, it is still entirely possible that the crystal contains a mix of champions, of which some are effective in certain ways in certain tiers of AQ and AW. There is no reasonable reason to state that if Kabam Miike says those nine champions are seen as effective and used by a small number of players, that every champion fits that description. As for analysis, it’s pretty clear Miike wants to hang his hat on empirical data the team looked at to make their determination. I'm not sure what you mean by "hang his hat." Its a plain statement that Kabam used empirical data to decide how to evaluate the champions. Every MMO company does that. But nowhere do they say *which* champions, given that data, were intentionally put in the crystal. For example, it would be entirely consistent with how MMO companies generally work for Kabam to see that different champions are used at different tiers, or by different player populations of varying skill and playtime, and try to pick a random sample of such champions from across different segments of the player population to represent a wide swath of them. Doing so would guarantee that many if not most of the champions would only be seen as useful by a small percentage of the players, and seen less favorably by a majority of the players. That happens all the time when a reward is created that is a segmented sum of narrow-casted datamining. ... It is numerically possible for Kabam to exclude the bottom 25% from the curated list. It is numerically impractical, and borderline impossible, for Kabam to include only the top 50%. I’m tempted to simply reply tl;dr. But I think you need to reread my initial comment as well as what Miike said. I didn’t argue that the most effective champs needed to be in the crystal; rather, that I agreed with another poster who listed a set of attributes he believed most players found desirable in champs. I compared that list to the 18 champs and found it mostly lacking, with some exceptions. Most of those exceptions were not, in my opinion, best in class with regard to those attributes, but were somewhat serviceable. As for Miike’s comments, we clearly read English differently. Your observations may be partially accurate if you read each statement absolutely literally and in a vacuum. But that’s not how an ongoing dialogue like the one occurring here is read. Statements should be read in context. Miike essentially says 3 things in sequence: (1) We used data on performance in AQ and AW to exclude the worst champs; (2) We selected the 18 based on their effectiveness in AQ and AW (and in the context of (1) and (3) it can be inferred that we didn’t just pick the next worst champs or worst champs as determined by our data); and (3) The champs we selected were not only “not the worst or next worst,” but they were “among the most effective” in AQ and AW according to our data even if they were not always the most used champs in AQ and AW (which suggests to me potentially skewed and misleading data set based on small sample size, but that’s another matter). That’s pretty much it. The upshot is that they selected champs they considered based on their observations to be useful (“among the most effective”) champs, regardless of of how many observations there actually were. Quite a lot of folks (not just the few dozen in this thread) disagree on the actual level of usefulness for the 18 selections based on their own experiences actually playing the game. Continue splitting hairs if you want but I don’t think it’s much more complex than that. Dr. Zola
AnotherPool wrote: » Seriously dude, I'm curious how you guys convinced yourselves that people will buy this craaaaaap. Did you see a single person likes this change? If you are player, will you spend your precious shards on this craaaaaaaap? This is just insane and ridiculous, if you can't see now, you will see from your game statistics in May and realize how stupid this change is. Kabam Miike wrote: » I think you totally misunderstood my post. What this is in regards to is somebody saying that they would not like to pull a Storm from that Crystal, and I was saying that this is still possible even right now, as well as other Champions that they might now want, so this doesn't change that.
Kabam Miike wrote: » I think you totally misunderstood my post. What this is in regards to is somebody saying that they would not like to pull a Storm from that Crystal, and I was saying that this is still possible even right now, as well as other Champions that they might now want, so this doesn't change that.
Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » I would probably venture that they were aware of the implications before making the decision. I wasn't part of the decision-making process, obviously, so I can't say for sure. I would suspect that they were aware that people would react to the decreased chance. Whatever the process, they ultimately decided that the reasons for the change outweigh the possible reaction. Rarely do I reference 12.0, simply because it's used so much, but it comes to mind in this sense because it was the best example of not anticipating the reaction. I don't think this is the same extremity at all, or even close to the same situation. However, they didn't anticipate the effect that the extreme changes would have. I have no doubts that they are more cognizant of pretty much any large change now, and they have taken steps to include Players in the process. I think ultimately, there will be changes from time to time that people don't like. That is part of having to make decisions that are optimal for the present and future of the game. You left out optimal for their profits.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » I would probably venture that they were aware of the implications before making the decision. I wasn't part of the decision-making process, obviously, so I can't say for sure. I would suspect that they were aware that people would react to the decreased chance. Whatever the process, they ultimately decided that the reasons for the change outweigh the possible reaction. Rarely do I reference 12.0, simply because it's used so much, but it comes to mind in this sense because it was the best example of not anticipating the reaction. I don't think this is the same extremity at all, or even close to the same situation. However, they didn't anticipate the effect that the extreme changes would have. I have no doubts that they are more cognizant of pretty much any large change now, and they have taken steps to include Players in the process. I think ultimately, there will be changes from time to time that people don't like. That is part of having to make decisions that are optimal for the present and future of the game.
Axo4545 wrote: » LeNoirFaineant wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » I would probably venture that they were aware of the implications before making the decision. I wasn't part of the decision-making process, obviously, so I can't say for sure. I would suspect that they were aware that people would react to the decreased chance. Whatever the process, they ultimately decided that the reasons for the change outweigh the possible reaction. Rarely do I reference 12.0, simply because it's used so much, but it comes to mind in this sense because it was the best example of not anticipating the reaction. I don't think this is the same extremity at all, or even close to the same situation. However, they didn't anticipate the effect that the extreme changes would have. I have no doubts that they are more cognizant of pretty much any large change now, and they have taken steps to include Players in the process. I think ultimately, there will be changes from time to time that people don't like. That is part of having to make decisions that are optimal for the present and future of the game. You left out optimal for their profits. I am opposed to many Kabam decisions but I never object to them trying to make a profit. All of the "money grab" posts I find to be short sighted. Free to play only works if others spend and if no one does there is no game. I like the game so I am in favor of decisions that make them money as long as they aren't detrimental to the game. Having said that, this crystal is garbage and it won't make them money because no one will buy it. I didn't say anything against it. They are a business and businesses try to make money. I was only stating that he left that out. I agree that I don't think that this will be one of there better attempts to increase their profits though. I do wish that they would be more up front about it instead of trying to sell it as something they are doing for the players. When they do that it just creates animosity towards them and kinda insults players intelligence.
LeNoirFaineant wrote: » Axo4545 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » I would probably venture that they were aware of the implications before making the decision. I wasn't part of the decision-making process, obviously, so I can't say for sure. I would suspect that they were aware that people would react to the decreased chance. Whatever the process, they ultimately decided that the reasons for the change outweigh the possible reaction. Rarely do I reference 12.0, simply because it's used so much, but it comes to mind in this sense because it was the best example of not anticipating the reaction. I don't think this is the same extremity at all, or even close to the same situation. However, they didn't anticipate the effect that the extreme changes would have. I have no doubts that they are more cognizant of pretty much any large change now, and they have taken steps to include Players in the process. I think ultimately, there will be changes from time to time that people don't like. That is part of having to make decisions that are optimal for the present and future of the game. You left out optimal for their profits. I am opposed to many Kabam decisions but I never object to them trying to make a profit. All of the "money grab" posts I find to be short sighted. Free to play only works if others spend and if no one does there is no game. I like the game so I am in favor of decisions that make them money as long as they aren't detrimental to the game. Having said that, this crystal is garbage and it won't make them money because no one will buy it.
General_Vis wrote: » I don’t know why everyone is getting so hung up on the empirical data statement. It’s just spin that has been (badly) worded to justify another unpopular decision. It’s no different to when perfect block teams were removed, the top champs were nerfed, 2* alliance wars were disabled and defender kills were removed. On each and every one of those occasions Kabam came out with a half-arsed justification that the playerbase saw right through. Most people I know as well as the youtubers all seem to be in agreement that the changes were made because it was becoming too easy to get the featured champ therefore you effectively build your own roster and that they also want to push people more towards the 300 unit featured grandmaster crystals. I’d have a lot more respect if they simply came out and said that rather than trying to sell us a line about cyclops and ant man being high performing champs.
